economic fallacy that industry can be
carried on without private enterprise and personal initiative. The same
theory applied by constitutional methods would produce precisely the
same results. If the Socialists are ever allowed to carry out their full
programme, England may be reduced to the state of Russia without the
shedding of a drop of blood.

But how are we to explain the fact that in spite of the failure of
Socialism in the past, in spite of the gigantic fiasco presented by
Russia, in spite, moreover, of the declaration by the Bolsheviks
themselves that Communism had failed and must be replaced by "a new
economic policy," that is to say by a return to "Capitalism,"[736]
there should still be a large and increasing body of people to proclaim
the efficacy of Socialism as the remedy for all social ills? In any
other field of human experiment, in medicine or mechanical invention,
failure spells oblivion; the prophylactic that does not cure, the
machine that cannot be made to work, is speedily relegated to the
scrap-heap. What indeed should we say of the bacteriologist, who, after
killing innumerable patients with a particular serum, were to advertise
it as an unqualified success? Should we not brand such a man as an
unscrupulous charlatan or at best as a dangerous visionary? If,
moreover, we were to find that large bands of agents backed by unlimited
funds, were engaged in pressing his remedy upon the public and carefully
avoiding all reference to the fatalities it had caused, should we not
further conclude that there was "something behind all this"--some
powerful company "running" the concern with a view to advancing its own
private interests?

Why should not the same reasoning be applied to Socialism? For not only
has Socialism never been known to succeed, but all its past failures are
carefully kept dark by its exponents. Who, then, stands to gain by
advocating it? And further, who provides the vast sums spent on
propaganda? If in reality Socialism is a rising of the "have-nots"
against the "haves," how is it that most of the money seems to be on
the side of the "have-nots"? For whilst organizations working for law
and order are hampered at every turn for funds, no financial
considerations ever seem to interfere with the activities of the
so-called "Labour movement." Socialism, in fact, appears to be a
thoroughly "paying concern," into which a young man enters as he might
go into the City, with the reasonable e